Ken Buck

Mr. BUCK

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chair, my amendment appropriates up to $50,000 from the retention bonuses of Senior Executive Service personnel at the EPA to conduct a study of whether Agricola Americus, the American farmer, should be classified as an endangered species. This money should be used to determine whether there is crucial habitat that is essential for the conservation of the species and acting in accordance with 16 U.S.C. chapter 35 if such a finding is made. The Federal Government is no stranger to using its regulatory powers to interfere in important national issues, so it came as a surprise when I discovered that the Federal Government had overlooked the most endangered species in America. The Fish and Wildlife Service has been so thorough in designating animals as endangered all around farms, but for some reason hasn't seen the plight of the American farmer. Paul Harvey recognized, in 1978, that God made Agricola Americus with a unique set of characteristics essential to our Nation, so I am troubled that the number of farmers in America has steadily declined over the last six decades. Not only has the number of American farmers shrunk, but so has the number of farms. Those lost have mainly been family farms, passed down through generations of hard work and built up with years of sweat equity. They have faced numerous manmade obstacles that interfere with their environment and encroach on their natural territory. They have been subject to the ravages of wolves released by the very agency that should be tasked with protecting this essential American species. Yet the Department of the Interior does not have a monopoly on society's invasion of the American farmer and the habitat. Family farms have been destroyed by the death tax, regulated out of business by FDA and EPA mandates, and forced to dump crops by outdated government programs that even now are being struck down by the Supreme Court. How much more of this regulatory onslaught can the Agricola Americus take before we recognize the harm of our actions and work to make sure that we are not complicit in its disappearance? We cannot leave the farmer alone in the eye of this regulatory storm. I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chair, my amendment would prohibit paying any Federal employee for the time spent not working for the taxpayers but working for a third party, a labor union. This practice is known as ``official time.'' Unlike any other type of third-party organization, labor unions have been granted the privilege of being able to have taxpayer-funded employees do their business on duty time, instead of doing the taxpayers' work. Like any other type of private entity, labor unions should pay for their own employees to work for them. The taxpayers should not be picking up the tab for this practice. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, this practice costs taxpayers approximately $156 million per year. That is assuming that the agencies are correctly reporting the amounts spent, and there have been indications that this number actually underreports the total cost. In some instances, we are not talking about just a few minutes here and there for an agency employee who is a union official to confer with management about a workplace issue. Sometimes, the agency employee is actually working full time for the labor union, all the while being paid by the taxpayers for this union work. For instance, the IRS has more than 200 employees working full time for labor unions; the VA has over 250 employees working full time for labor unions--this at a time when there is a significant backlog of cases to be processed. One of these employees doesn't even work in a VA facility but, instead, works remotely from a private office in D.C. The EPA, while not having as many personnel on full-time official time as some agencies, still pays over $1.6 million just for those personnel who are working full time for their union. Some agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, have numerous employees making over $170,000 per year, while working full time for the union. This is more than almost all Federal employees make, higher than the salaries of many Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretaries. My amendment would not prohibit this practice, but would make certain that the right party pays for this work, the labor union. It is not right to force our taxpayers to pay the bill to subsidize these private organizations any more than it would be right to force them to subsidize other private organizations such as the National Rifle Association or the Sierra Club. Like any business, labor unions should pay the cost for their own employees, not taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUCK

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my friend from North Carolina for putting this together and for yielding to me. Many of us know that today marks an important anniversary in world history. Eight hundred years ago, following a populist revolution led by courageous English barons demanding the protections from executive overreach, England's King John signed into law a document known as the Magna Carta. This ``Grand Charter'' marked the first time that everyone, including kings, were subjected to the rule of law, that everyone would enjoy the benefits of due process and equal protection under the law. The Magna Carta inspired our Founding Fathers to demand liberty in the Declaration of Independence. Many Magna Carta principles appeared again in the United States Constitution. This one single document became the basis of our Republic and established one of our greatest founding principles, the rule of law, and the rule of law remains as important as ever. President Obama is working to fundamentally transform our laws without consent, granting citizenship to illegal immigrants, making recess appointments to the NLRB when the Senate is not in recess, and changing the healthcare law without an act of Congress. The IRS ignored the rule of law by targeting and harassing individuals based on their political beliefs. And who could forget the ATF's Fast and Furious program, which allowed U.S. weapons to be walked across the U.S.-Mexico border in hopes of catching Mexican drug lords, but ended with the tragic murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. It is time to prevent future would-be monarchs from being elected and further eroding our proud tradition for the rule of law. While the Clinton family has been known to play by their own set of rules and has a laundry list of scandals that goes back decades, I am squarely focused on two dubious, dishonest, and dangerous scandals that Hillary Clinton was involved in while serving as Secretary of State. As the Nation's top diplomat, Secretary Clinton used her position of power to create her own set of rules, using a personal email account for official State Department business. She continued to do so even after issuing a memo calling on staff to use official government email accounts. Secretary Clinton ignored the rule of law when she deleted over 30,000 State Department emails from a personal server located in the basement of her Georgetown mansion. What makes this worse is that she deleted these emails even as Congress called for her to release them. Storing these emails on a private server violates Federal records law. Deleting these emails also raises questions not seen since the IRS targeting investigation. What is she hiding in these deleted emails? Did she even consider what might happen if these records fell into the wrong hands? Would she even know if her server had been breached? Secretary Clinton proudly stated during a March 10 press conference: I fully complied with every rule I was governed by. Americans will never know because she ignored the rule of law. By exclusively using a personal email account to conduct State Department business, Secretary Clinton put the State Department at a great risk just for her personal convenience. The Secretary of State is also not allowed to conduct and store official State Department business on a private, unsecured server. If any other hard-working American conducted their business this way, they would be out of a job and most likely in jail. This brings me to the Clinton family's next scandal. While Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, the Clinton family foundation continued to accept millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments. All told, seven foreign nations, including Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and Algeria, donated money to the Clinton Foundation during the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. These contributions raised questions about Secretary Clinton's independence and ethical judgment. But when some of the $1 million donations in question came from nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, it raises concerns about whether these nations were hoping to gain better diplomatic ties to the United States through sizable donations to the Clinton Foundation. When the Secretary of State is playing fast and loose with the rule of law, even ignoring a memorandum of understanding with the White House regarding a questionable donation from the Algerian Government, it is extremely difficult to trust her judgment or her word when she claims not to have broken any laws. The rule of law has been a core principle since our founding. Brave men and women have fought and died to protect this idea and preserve the liberty we hold so dearly. This is why I find it especially tragic that Secretary Clinton blatantly ignored the rule of law. The Magna Carta's anniversary is a great opportunity to remember the courageous barons who secured the rule of law. We must restore this key principle and stop the attacks on our founding principles. It is our job to safeguard those liberties and protect the America we know and love for generations to come.

Mr. BUCK

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chair, I rise to strike language from this appropriations bill that denies hope, denies dignity, and denies Americans their Second Amendment right to bear arms. When I was district attorney in northern Colorado, a gentleman visited my office. He told me a story that I have heard from many, many others. He told me that 40 years ago, when he was in college, he gave his landlord a bad check. He pled guilty to a felony. The past 40 years, he has been a model citizen. He finished college. He work hard and raised a family. Now he wants to go hunting with his grandchild. He can't because he is a convicted felon. The law allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to restore this man's right to possess a firearm. The burden is on the applicant to prove that he is not a danger. ATF may investigate to make sure. This appropriations bill prohibits ATF from processing applications, from following the law established by Congress 30 years ago. America is a compassionate country. We restore the right to vote in many States, and other rights. There is no good reason to prevent law- abiding citizens from, at the very least, petitioning ATF to have their rights restored. The change I am seeking is fair and reasonable, and it is long overdue. People who are able to prove to ATF that their possession of a firearm would pose no danger to society would finally, after over two decades of unfair treatment, be permitted to make their case and have their rights restored. Not everyone who petitions ATF will have their rights restored. In fact, this bill does not intend in any way, shape, or form to allow a violent criminal to possess a firearm--only those nonviolent criminals that ATF deems are not a danger. Not everyone will have their rights restored, but Washington should not get in the way of Americans asking for a second chance. For these reasons, I respectfully request support for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUCK

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment from my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tipton). Mr. Chairman, we have a history of borrowing for the future in this country. We have borrowed for fighting wars, for building roads, and for building space programs. Now, we are borrowing from the future, as opposed to for the future. We have $18 trillion of debt, and we will add to that debt this year. This project was authorized in 1962, and it is required more recently by the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Water Act. We have 40 communities in southeast Colorado who are in violation of the Clean Water Act because of naturally occurring elements. This amendment offers those communities a future. If we have to incur debt, let it be an investment for our children's future.

Mr. BUCK

Mr. BUCK. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia. Bribery, corruption, and fraud, throughout my tenure as a State and Federal prosecutor, I saw all of these evils and more. I am disappointed to say that the words I once used to describe white-collar criminals can now be used to define a federally funded entity. The Export-Import Bank, or, as some know it, the Ex-Im Bank, has taken advantage of our free market system. An institution that once stood for economic growth, prosperity, and global expansion now stands as a symbol of greed, a pillar of crony capitalism. It does not take a trained eye to see that the Ex-Im Bank is exactly what is wrong with Washington today. This 80-year-old institution we once trusted to expand our ``Made in America'' brand to every corner of the globe has failed to live up to its charter and has, instead, morphed into something else. The Bank does not maintain or create jobs. It does not support small businesses as much as its supporters would like you to think. It does not level the playing field for U.S. exporters. It is not even a good deal for taxpayers. The Ex-Im Bank has become more like a train with no conductor at the helm, running faster and faster, heading straight off the tracks. As so often happens when accountability is slim and punishment is nonexistent, the Ex-Im Bank has become a breeding ground for corruption, cronyism, and fraud. If you think I am wrong, even President Obama agreed with me back in 2008. Before he ascended to the White House, Mr. Obama said that the Ex-Im Bank was ``little more than corporate welfare.'' The President is also on record saying: There should be a level playing field for U.S. exporters, allowing them to compete based on the quality and price of their goods and services, rather than on the quality of any officially supported financing. You know, Mr. President, the great thing about the Internet is those words never go away, no matter how much you change your tune. At best, the Bank is handpicking winners and losers. At worst, Ex-Im Bank is corruptly accepting bribes, crookedly steering funds to favored foreign companies, and chilling the market for our homegrown companies. Take, for instance, Delta Air Lines. Delta is suing Ex-Im Bank because it feels that it is being cheated out of many of its former routes. The airline is on record saying that foreign competitors aided by American taxpayer-funded loans from the Ex-Im Bank can now charge less per flight because they have purchased Boeing aircraft at cheaper prices than our own American companies can. The American taxpayer is subsidizing foreign airlines that compete with other American airlines. Speaking of Boeing and the Ex-Im Bank's corrupt practices, following Delta's suit, Congress mandated that the Bank perform economic impact reviews on all large deals. Take one guess who helped Ex-Im craft these rules. Boeing. This company received 65.4 percent of the bank's taxpayer-backed financing to help sell their jets to foreign companies, putting domestic airlines like Delta in a bind. How can Ex-Im justify its claims of leveling the playing field and supporting small businesses with these practices? It only takes a quick glance at Ex-Im's leadership to see how we got to this point. The Daily Caller found that fully half of Ex-Im's own advisory committee members led businesses that directly benefited from Ex-Im financing during their term. Five more members had Ex-Im funding reach their organizations before joining the advisory committee. And most disturbing of all, if we can have something more disturbing, is that the current advisory committee chair is former Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington State--Washington State, which receives 43.6 percent of the bank's total funding. I invite you once again to take one guess at what company is headquartered in Washington State. Yes, you guessed it: Boeing. Mr. Speaker, if this is not bad enough, between October 2007 and March 2014, there were 124 investigations linked to corruption surrounding the Ex-Im Bank. This includes some 792 separate claims involving more than $500 million. The Ex-Im inspector general also revealed last week that 31 other Ex-Im Bank employees are currently being investigated for fraud. That brings us to nearly 40 Ex-Im employees who have already been investigated or are currently being investigated for fraud. During an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing during the week of April 15, the Export-Import Bank's inspector general revealed that four senior-level Ex-Im employees were relieved of their duties last summer. These employees were allegedly steering taxpayer- funded loans to favored companies in exchange for cash payments and other kickbacks. A former Congressman is sitting now in Federal prison until 2023 on bribery charges linked to Bank practices. Another former Ex-Im employee was indicted in the same scheme for soliciting and accepting $173,500 in bribes. The list goes on and on. How can we justify allowing a Federal agency to continue to operate in flagrant disregard of the law? Mr. Speaker, the most recent of these cases features a former Ex-Im loan officer, Johnny Gutierrez. You may remember Mr. Gutierrez as one of the four Ex-Im employees I mentioned before. He has the dubious honor of being the first of these four to be formally charged with bribery by the Department of Justice. He allegedly accepted cash bribes 19 times between 2006 and 2013 to help direct taxpayer-backed loans to a Florida-based construction equipment exporter, Impex Association. Mr. Gutierrez was apparently very good at his job. He secured between $1 million and $5 million to finance Impex Association projects in both Mexico and the Dominican Republic in June 2007. Similar guarantees were also promised to Jamaica and the Turks and Caicos. It is clear this is, unfortunately, not an isolated incident. It only gets worse, Mr. Speaker. In 2009, former Democratic Congressman William J. Jefferson from Louisiana was convicted of accepting bribes from U.S. telecom company IGATE and a Nigerian company in exchange for selling access to Ex-Im Bank employees. Jefferson was even videotaped receiving $100,000 at the Ritz-Carlton hotel right across the river in Arlington. When Federal investigators raided Jefferson's house, they discovered over $90,000 in cash stashed away in his freezer. This does not even take into account the former Ex-Im employee, Maureen Scurry, who was indicted for accepting $173,500 worth of bribes to help the Nigerian company. I don't know about you, but when an internal poll shows that only 42.1 percent of your employees think the organization's leaders maintain a high standard of honesty and integrity, and only 50.2 percent of employees believe they can disclose violations of the law without fearing for their jobs, there is something terribly wrong. It is time for a change here in Washington. The Ex-Im Bank is the perfect example of what happens when a single agency is allowed to pick winners and losers. For too long, Ex-Im employees have been accepting falsified documents, failing to record applicants' eligibility, and forging mandatory checks on applicants' financial integrity. There is a systemic sickness poisoning this agency with greed and corruption. It must be stopped, and it must be stopped now. This battle may be hard. But it is one I feel deep down that we must fight. We cannot allow this corrupt agency to continue picking winners and losers, laughing in the face of our laws and degrading our free market principles. The Ex-Im Bank is a portrait of exactly what is wrong with Washington today, and it is finally time for a change. That is why I ask you to join me on June 30 in allowing this pillar of crony capitalism to expire once and for all. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. BUCK. I thank the gentleman from Ohio, and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Brat).

Mr. BUCK. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. BUCK

Mr. BUCK. ``. . . they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.'' Section 2: ``The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''